Notes from the Resistance
I’ll be joining host Mark Walters today at 4 Eastern to talk about what’s happening at SCOTUS with frames and receivers, and whatever else the conversation leads to.
Go to the Armed American Radio website to listen/watch live/find a station near you.
I don’t know what’s so damn hard to understand about “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Justice Alito Wrecks ATF’s ‘Ghost Gun’ Argument: Are Eggs and Peppers an Omelet?[More]
So are John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett bent on scrambling things?
Mark W. Smith has some interesting thoughts, including “if the ATF theory is allowed here, then drilling a single hole in AR-15s to convert it into a machine gun means that an AR-15 is “readily convertable” into a machine gun and thus a machine gun. SCOTUS will need to issue a ruling to avoid this result.”
Supreme Court Will Hear Gun Industry Challenge to Mexico’s Lawsuit – “Simply put, Mexico’s suit threatens to undermine American sovereignty and constitutional liberty, and it has no business in this country’s courts.” [More]
I expect our side to win. What I’m most curious of is what the Democrat judges will do, and how they will rationalize their arguments if they side with Mexico.
Between SCOTUS now taking on both this and frames/receivers, how any gun owner can justify not voting and letting Kamala Harris reshape the Court is beyond me.
[Via Michael G]
Throughout the document, Smith argues that the actions Trump took to overturn the election were in his private capacity – as a candidate – rather than in his official capacity, as a president. [More]
Speaking of acting in a private capacity, how is that not what election interference apparatchik Smith is doing, and why can’t (haven’t) Republicans and SCOTUS put an immediate halt to it?
The Supreme Court is back in session as of Monday October 7th and they have a case before them in Snope v. Brown that could end all bans nationwide. This comes from a 4th circuit decision upholding the Maryland ban. [Watch]
There’s a huge difference between “could” and “will.”
Cross your fingers and wish for the best, but don’t invest all your hope.
[Via Jess]
GOA Files Amicus Brief in Challenge to Maryland AWB @ SCOTUS [More]
How much longer is SCOTUS going to allow inferior courts like the Fourth Circuit to snub thier noses at Bruen?
SAF PETITIONS SCOTUS FOR CERTIORARI IN DELAWARE GUN, MAG BAN CHALLENGES [More]
Basically, the prohibitionist position is that free people can’t be trusted with Pez dispenser technology.
For places that are newer, Defendants must point to regulations that are analogous to the regulations cited by the Supreme Court, taking into account that it is illogical to expect a government to regulate a place before it existed in its modern form. [More]
So, any building, parcel, street, city, territory, or state developed after ratification…?
What other articles in the Bill of Rights does this apply to?
BOMBSHELL Interview: AG Of MO Joins The Channel & VOWS To Take SAPA To SCOTUS IMMEDIATELY! In today’s episode, we have a very special guest, the Attorney General of Missouri Andrew Bailey. He’s going to SCOTUS and no one is going to stop him [Watch]
Did they agree to take the case?
Since 2A is supposed to ultimately be about freedom, I can’t quite make the guy out to be a hero until I see some credible answers on keeping innocent prisoners incarcerated.
[Via Jess]
The future of the Supreme Court is on the line in November’s elections. If Vice President Kamala Harris and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer are victorious in November, the independent Supreme Court that the Framers bequeathed to us will be a thing of the past. That’s one of the big reasons why Harris must be defeated in her campaign for president, and why Schumer must be demoted to Minority Leader. [More]
I forgot to mention: The Guardians beat Pittsburgh!
[Via bondmen]
The Court should not grant certiorari to review at this stage but should permit the ordinary percolation process to continue and reserve its intervention for the point at which, if it comes at all, the courts of appeals are actually divided.” [More]
I understand what they’re doing and why.
It’s not them, it’s a fraudulent power-usurping system that allowed the first infringement to take place and has done nothing since but entrench and assail.
27 states urge Supreme Court to reject Biden administration’s rule defining gun parts [More]
The court’s ability and inclination to produce favorable future rulings depends on what happens in November, for those of you who believe sitting on your hands because it doesn’t make any difference is defensible.
[Via Jess]
Today, attorneys for Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed a merits-stage Respondents’ brief with the United States Supreme Court in FPC’s Garland v. VanDerStok lawsuit challenging ATF’s “Definition of ‘Frame or Receiver’ and Identification of Firearms” Rule. FPC’s brief, available at FPCLaw.org, explains why the government’s Rule cannot survive scrutiny and must fail. [More]
Mark W. Smith of The Four Boxes Diner breaks it down for us.
[Via Jess]
A challenge against Maryland’s gun ban is likely to make it to the U.S. Supreme Court before gun ban challenges from other states. [More]
Sadly, all the high court has to do to let it stand is nothing.
If they do hear it, it will be a game-changer, but it will still leave the more fundamentally destructive NFA and Hughes Amendment in play.
Then there are the questions of when will they hear such a case, and who will be in power and appointing justices?
[Via Jess]
Why does the Court lower the bar for the First Amendment, but not the Second Amendment? Why does free speech require “breathing room” but self-defense does not? [More]
They’re working on “fixing” that.
[Via Michael G]
Mexico Asks US Supreme Court To Allow Its $10 Billion Lawsuit Against US Gun Makers [More]
And the only people urging us to boycott Mexico are environmentalcases at the Center for Biological Diversity…?
And I don’t suppose a countersuit’s an option…?
[Via bondmen]
The question before the courts should be simple: How did people at the time of the Constitution’s ratification define “arms”? [More]
“Weapons of war” are precisely what the Founders had in mind.
The Supreme Court refused to hear any Second Amendment cases as of now. So, why did they do this and what is the future of 2A Supreme Court litigations. Mark Smith Four Boxes Diner explains. [Watch]
Paint it how you like, but when policies and procedures override the reasons articulated in the Preamble for having them, something’s broken. You know it’s “shall not be infringed,” they know it’s “shall not be infringed,” and the traitors know it’s “shall not be infringed.”
We weren’t made to be ruled by hobgoblins, robed or otherwise.
[Via Jess]
Held: The Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, and courts may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous; Chevron is overruled. [More]
[Via Antigone]
The justices in a 6-3 vote on nonideological lines handed a win to defendant Joseph Fischer, who is among hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants — including former President Donald Trump — who have been charged with obstructing an official proceeding over the effort to prevent Congress’ certification of President Joe Biden’s election victory. [More]
That’s great news. But once again, Amy Coney Barrett casts doubt on her appointment.
She gave us Bruen, but as the saying goes, “What has she done for us lately?”
While Barrett’s confirmation should give gun owners a degree of hope and should certainly be viewed as more positive than a Biden nominee being placed on the High Court, we’ll need to wait and see if the gun groups or the gun-grabbers are right in their assessments. Republican appointments have disappointed in the past. Warren Burger and David Souter coming to mind.
Back to J6, that means hundreds have been falsely accused, arrested, prosecuted,and imprisoned. Who will pay?
Democrats are still out there smearing them as insurrectionists and traitors.
The Court ruled 6-3 that the plaintiffs, a group of conservative states and social media users, had no standing to sue the federal government over its attempts to influence the censorship policies of social media giants. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the opinion of the court, but Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas dissented. [More]
Is it unfair to wonder whose got what on turncoat “conservatives”?
Major breaking news: Attorney General Merrick Garland and his solicitor general are trying to strike while the iron is hot, so they think. They have just requested of the United States Supreme Court that the court take a series … of cases involving Second Amendment challenges … basically trying to take advantage of what they think is a huge win for them in the Rahimi case… [Watch]
It was a huge win. It showed just how malleable all the “good” Bruen judges, with the exception of Clarence Thomas, are.
And like all jackals, emboldened when they sense weakness, they move the circle in to attack.
[Via Jess]
Supreme Court upholds law barring those with domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms [More]
The decision ignored the law, and no one will be made safer.
Roberts sure was stretching it– there’s a world of difference between “misusing” and “possessing.” There was nothing comparable to a restraining order at the time of ratification — those who received due process and were convicted were removed from society.
Thomas was the only one who got it right. Leave it to Giffords’ litigation director to literally cast aspersions on a black man’s “humanity” and get away with it.
The Second Amendment Foundation has filed an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court supporting Hawaii resident Christopher L. Wilson’s petition for a writ of certiorari in his challenge of the Hawaii state Supreme Court’s decree that individual citizens in the Aloha State do not have the right to carry firearms for self-defense outside of their homes. [More]
If government can say you don’t have it there, it can say you don’t have it anywhere.
“Relying exclusively on history and tradition may seem like a way of avoiding judge-made tests,” she wrote in a concurring opinion. “But a rule rendering tradition dispositive is itself a judge-made test. And I do not see a good reason to resolve this case using that approach rather than by adopting a generally applicable principle.” [More]
Between this, Gorsuch playing for the other team, Machine Gun Sammy giving “how to ban” instructions, Kavanaugh looking the Bruen gift horse in the mouth, and Roberts being Roberts, you’ll have to forgive me if I don’t view the bump stock opinion as proof our troubles are over.
I just hope Clarence Thomas doesn’t drop.
